parking trailers

Our Association has a requirement that camping trailers be kept in garages or parked out of site in the rear of the house. We are in an area where there are many visitors who come with campers. Some of our homes do not have garages big enough for campers and they do not have a way to park them in the rear. We are trying to decide a fair and realistic solution to this. We don't want to discourage visitors to our area nor make it impossible to stay in their camper while visiting. Yet, we've had some comments about a particular large camper owned by a guest that was parked in the driveway of the house and feel we might be wise to have some policy about this.

This is what we've drafted to date:
Section 10 of the PPOA Covenants states in summary that no Commercial Vehicles, Campers, and Trailers, etc. shall be stored or parked on a homeowners property unless basically kept from view. The underlying intent of this covenant is to preclude PPOA owners from using their property as a visible storage facility for their RVs, Campers, etc. The Board, however, does not feel that this strictly applies to guests visiting PPOA owners and temporarily parking on the owner’s property. As such, the policy for guests allows the temporary parking and use of guest RVs and Campers for up to seven cumulative days per year.

I am concerned about being as specific as "7 days a year" because that seems to invite policing.

Does anyone have any suggestions about the best way to deal with this or feedback on what we've drafted to date?
Lois

Lois,

IMO this rule would be a violation of the CCRs, which, according to you, explicitly state no campers can be parked within view. Guests of members are to be treated the same as the members. If a guest violates a covenant the owner is responsible. In this matter, you are treating a guest differently than members are being treated. IMO, the only way to get around this is to amend the CCRs by eliminating the restriction against parking campers.

I doesn't matter, Ellen.

Campers are not allowed to be on the properties.

I'm sure the CC&Rs don't waive the condition based on whether they "stay" in them or not.

They will have to either find a campsite, or stay with the resident and park the camper at a storage facility.

They are clearly trying to get around the CC&Rs and the board should stand behind the CC&Rs.

Michele,

But Lois says "we dont' want to discourage visitors nor keep them from whatever"...It appears that first the association needs to make up its mind, either campers are or are not allowed and if allowed for what period of time. We had a situation here where owners had a single mother move in with them in their unit. The next thing a large motorhome with another relative was in their driveway and hooked up with electricity (bringing with them another dog or dogs) and it appeared they were here to stay. Our docs allow for two dogs and no more so in addition to the eyesore we were dealing with a lot more poop and scoop. Fortunately it was resolved. I agree with you the CCRs should be upheld and Lois can't have it both ways. Either change the covenants or live by them.

I know. I was trying to be as gentle as possible with her.

The bottom line is the board doesn't get the option of deciding which restrictions they will enforce and which they will "look the other way" on or which they will try to finagle with a poorly written "exception" of some kind. Granted, there are places in the documents that generally give the board some discretionary wiggle room. THIS particular one, however, does not appear to be one of those.

We wouldn't necessarily want to "discourage" visitors either, but the fact of the matter is, some restrictions and covenants will do exactly that.

Heck some will even discourage "owners," if you want to put not too fine a coat on it.

Like pools. Covenants that do not allow above-ground pools would "discourage" homeownership of people who want to install an above-ground pool. Do we then try to rewrite the restriction to satisfy one or two or even 10 potential homeowners?

Apparently over 300 residents actually bought into the development completely aware of and happy with the restriction on above-ground pools.

It appears, too, in this poster's case, a vast majority of the homeowners are and were okay with a restriction against campers. To try and alter that now, without the level of support from the majority that would require an amendment would not be appropriate.

Just because a few board members don't want to be the bad guys and tell these people they can't let people visit and live in their campers?

I'm just sayin'.

Well, I am going to say that others are wrong. It is YOUR community and the right thing is what is right for you. This may mean that you leave some provision for visiting people to stay in their campers.

But before you go to the effort to amend your covenants, check with city hall. In most cities here there are ordinances that would keep people from camping in the driveway.

LoisA,
Of course you all can do what you want. but that wasn't and isn't the question you asked.

You have received some sound advice here. Too often we forget we don't make decisions for today, decisions are made for permanence. I doubt you can make a policy that overrides your covenants, the membership does that by amending the covenants. At issue here is not the campers parking, it is what is good for the association. Majority or who is the most vocal or who is on the board has no bearing. Is it good for the association, that can only be determined by the association. As others noted, you have violated the covenants. Change the covenants if you must, but right now Lois, I think you rational applies equally to whether to allow or not to allow.

Kirk,

I can't believe you are promoting violating the CCRs! It may be their community and allowing guests to park campers would be the right thing to do, but it is NOT allowed, plain and simple. To write a provision for visiting people would most likely also be in violation of the CCRs. If guests were to be exempted from the provision it would have been stated thus, but because it isn't the board cannot just write a provision allowing "visiting people to stay in their campers". Frankly, that would be a double-whammy. Allowing visitors to park their campers in plain view is #1 and allowing people to live in the camper would be #2. IMO, an amendment to the CCRs is the only action that can be taken! But, I do believe the board should be careful when writing the amendment. Allowing guests to park their camper for a short period of time is one thing but to allow them to "live" in the camper would be quite another and could open up a whole new set of problems. Next thing you know your community is taking on the airs of a campground!

Hi, Michele,
In response to your question about wether I have vested interest in the camper situation, the answer is no. I don't own a camper, have never had anyone visit us who has one, and I am not friends with the couple who had the visitors with a camper. I am a Board Member who is just trying to see that we do what is best. The comments I've received from everyone here have been helpful and our board will certainly review them all.

So let me understand, is this about storing trailers or having guests with trailers. If a member's parents or a good friend who has traveled across the country to visit them in an RV they are not welcome in the subdivison? Most CCRs refer to the storage of member RVs. I have not heard of any that specifically refer to guests. What do you tell mom and pop when they come to visit at Christmas, that they have to go to a RV park? This is silly, especially if it is a residential neighborhood with adequate space to allow a visiting RV. This is a battle in my association right now. We have a minimum of 2 acre lots but one person does not want to see any RV whether a visitor or a member staging for a trip. Let's be sensible, an RV in the neighborhood for a few days will not crash property values.

Michele and Richard,
Re-read both posts and ask yourself who is right and who is wrong (What conclusion protects the association and what decision exposes the association?)

There really is only one answer.

It is fine that mom and Pop come to visit in their new RV. But tell me Richard, if you let Mom and Pop camp out, how about your sister and brother, or your aunt and uncle, or your freeloading ex neighbor, and who makes the decision if your neighbor does exactly that. Who is going to make the judgment? Are you going over there and knock on that camper door of your neighbor? You can sneak your folks dog in for a few days, but a camper?
Everyone knows rules are broken all the times, but only a trouble maker flaunts his transgressions.

Michele,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Mary, oddly enough, a good number of the HOAs of which I'm familiar here simply do not allow campers, RVs or trailers, and make absolutely no allowance if they are kept behind fencing or out of view.

Some of the really really high-end communities on the "other side" of town (where the homes go for in the seven figures) have storage facilities that are crammed to the brim with boats, RVs, campers, etc. because not a single one allows on-site parking or storage.

But I've seen on here that some do allow for storage/parking "out of view."

That alone can make for some pretty complex decisions. I remember more than one thread talking about it. Street view? From street level? Front of house view? Adjacent property view?

Whew. Can get bizarre!

Michele,

What you need to understand is that all property's are completely walled-in, so if the camper is behind the wall it cannot be seen by anyone. The only exception would be from a second-story window of a two-story home and that doesn't count. Of course this isn't even possible unless there is a double-gate on the wall, which most of the properties do not have. Only my home and one other on my cul-de-sac (and the street leading to it) have a double gate.

What I've heard is that "street view" is determined by standing in the middle of the street in front of the property in question.

A large retirement community W. of me (Sun City) has a rather large parking facility for RV's and it's always crammed full.

My first suggestion is to call your city and find out what the law says regarding sleeping in an RV outside the residence. If that practice is against the law, then you should tell your residents so.

I also think you should look into alternatives for staying nearby. My parents stay just five minutes from my house at a nice lake when they visit me. But having said that, not every home in America has a nearby location for people to camp at.

I would also suggest that you really go out and gather the pulse of the community. Don't stop at the few who show up to the meeting and speak loudly. Take some time and simply talk to neighbors. Get a good idea what it is the the people really want.

Then understand your options. For instance in my area we really can not enforce against such a situation anyway. Our CC&Rs require 10 days to correct most problems before any action can be taken. Thus the simple reality is that we can send a letter and by the time we can do more the visiting relative is gone anyway. (The city can act much faster and we refer our owners there.)

Link please.

And, Kirk, with all due respect, there are many many HOAS that do get to determine what happens on the streets, to a large extent, even when the municipality owns and maintains that street.

Our documents refer to what can and can't be done on one's lot, and the homeowners are responsible for ensuring compliance, including when their "guests" may actually be the ones in violation.

Our documents also refer to various things that can and cannot be done on the street adjacent to one's lot, on-street parking, for one.

Our documents do not allow for trailers on the lot or on the street adjacent to the lot. If the violation is occurring by a guest, the homeowner is responsible for correcting that violation.

Now, that's specifically addressing our documents. I think I can speak for a good number of regular posters when I say that when we reference our own documents we are doing it for illustrative purposes only and in no way, shape, or form implying that other associations (such as yours) need to follow our governing documents.

However, if someone tells us what their documents say and we have an opinion or advice, based on our experience with enforcing covenants in our own neighborhoods, then we will offer it.

In general, however, it's a shame you seem to imply that regardless, it's okay for boards to cherry pick which covenants to enforce and which may, with a wink and a nudge, be fine to overlook or use a less aggressive enforcement stance.

Granted, you didn't come right out and use those words, but since that is what I perceive the majority of the regular posters are saying, that when one is on the board, one cannot cherry pick covenants or apply some sort of wiggle room test, then when you admonish those posts as being why some people "despise" that they can't find a home not in an HOA, or that people in HOAs want "some protection" but not an association run in the "manner often found on this board," I am left with no other assumption.

So, am I safe to paraphrase that what you are saying is that you think most people want board members who will look the way on some things but not others and that boards do not have a fiduciary duty to fairly and consistently enforce the covenants?

If so, then I think you are correct. If someone wants arbitrary enforcement, and wants support with that manner of enforcement, then that person should probably go to a different site for advice.

We have had the trailer issue come up in our neighborhood as well. Our CC&R's state that trailers/campers cannot be "stored" on any lot within the neighborhood. We have many people who have campers, but keep them stored off site. When summer rolls around they often bring them into the neighborhood to stock them before going on vacation.

I am the president in our HOA and I felt so bad about telling people they could not have their trailers in the neighborhood (I don't personally have a problem with them), however I CANNOT let my personal feelings/ideas determine which parts of the CC&R's I enforce. I think that is a surefire route to being sued, and how does the Board determine who is worthy to have a trailer and for how long . . . oh geez, that just gets ugly.

Anyways, we discussed it at many meetings and the homeowners approved a resolution clarifying the word "stored". We now allow trailers/campers on lots for NO more than 24 hours in a 7 day period, which should be sufficient time to bring them home one day, load them up and leave the next day. It has worked very well and we have had no complaints.

I think Lois just needs to have more discussion with the homeowners (as many as possible) and determine if amending the CC&R's is appropriate. Otherwise, there really is no option but to follow the documents which ALL homeowners agreed to when the purchased their homes . . .that's no the Board's choice. If they don't want to enforce them or amend them, then they should step down and allow someone else to do the job. IMO.

HB,

Kudos to you and your board for finding a solution to the problem. I'm sure your CCRs (like many others) give the board the authority to interpret the restrictions, thereby allowing your board to define "stored". The CCRs of my assn also prohibit storing and parking RV's , campers, boats and other recreational type vehicles on our lot, driveway or even the street. However, they may be parked in the driveway or on the street for a 28-hour period before and after a trip for the purpose of cleaning, loading and unloading.

Robert,

Well, here's 2 1/2 kudos to you!

I wonder, where did the word "kudo" come from. It's a wierd word!!!

First, I serve my neighborhood. I consider my duty to neighborhood and those who live here to be above any charge to enforce the CC&Rs. I know that many here believe that the duty to CC&Rs is above the duty the neighborhood (and neighbors).

Do I see how some might believe that enforcing the CC&Rs is always what is best, I do not see it that way. I know for instance that less then 10% of the owners read and understood the CC&Rs before purchase. I also know the exact number of our residents who got a voice in the formation of the CC&Rs. The number is a nice round 0.

Further, the reality is that only two things stand in the way of abuse of power that the HOA holds. That is the integrity of the Board and a lawsuit. I don't believe that every suit involves an abuse of power, but many do in fact represent exactly that. And many HOAs do not work long enough before resorting to filing a suit.

It is up to the Board to decide at what point enforcement is needed in the case of campers. In most states, the only things standing in the way of the Board are elections and lawsuits and the latter involves great cost to the resident bringing it. And because of the power of incumbency even the election is not a great threat.

Now to the order of how to deal with the visiting guest staying in a camper, I would suggest getting the voice of the neighborhood (above and beyond what the rules state). Don't get me wrong, I would look for more then a simple majority to suggest looking the other way. But at the end of the day the Board has 95% of the power. And it remains the Board's option to decide just how to enforce something that is transient.

In some neighborhoods the right answer is to ignore it for a few days. In other neighborhoods the right answer is to knock on the door and ask them to move it right away. Still in others, you should send a letter informing the resident that they now owe a fine.

By the letter of our rules I should have a letter sent giving the resident 10 days to correct the problem. Needless to say, a call to city code enforcement will yield faster results and this is the advice our management company gives to residents. (They do send a letter as well.)

But again, I serve my neighborhood before I serve a set of rules.

I am much in agreement Mary.

I would be more worried about living in an HOA with a BOD that can choose not to follow the CC&R's and make up their own rules. There are some BOD's who take too much power and I think this is one of those situations, reagardless of whether YOU feel it is the right thing to do, EVERYONE has a differnt opinion. The beauty of the CC&R's is they are the same for everyone.

Wouldn't you be concerned about what rules if any that a new BOD in your neighborhood would try to enforce . . . what if they just ingnored the purple house in the neighborhood or the small garbage dump in someones back yard or the broken down car becuase they didn't feel they should encroach on a homeowners rights to do what they please in their own backyard? Is that ok? Who determines this? To me this is way more scary than having a written set of rules that everybody has to abide by. There are many choices to changing the CC&R's rather than just ignoring them or choosing not to enforce them becuase you don't agree.

This is just BOD abuse of power on the opposite end of the spectrum.

HB,

And that would be called "SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT" which is up there on the list of worst cases to go to court with. (the voice of experience here)

Normally Kirk has an attitude that I mostly agree with and seems to be a mellow guy. But I must disagree with this one Kirk. The neighbors are not who the Board makes decisions based on what they (the neighbors) want. The Board is required to obey their obligation to the documents. Changing the documents to what the neighbors want is the only recourse.

Thank You Robert,

Two brains are better than one and I appreciate your addition.

My HOA was under the strain of a lawsuit for over 2 years. After it was all over, we, the Board, decided to send every H.O. a simple letter with 1 question on it. It read ----" Would you, homeowner (Joe Schmo) be interested in amending our documents, to remove or change covenant 123 which reads that ALL PICKUP TRUCKS MUST BE PARKED WITHIN THE IMPROVEMENTS (GARAGES) EXCEPT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS."

" This is simply a poll of the membership. Check either the yes to change or the no to not change to remain the same. Please respond to the Board with this return envelope. This is mearly to see if there needs to be an amendment to the governing restrictions on pick-up trucks."

We mailed them out with return, stamped envelopes just to see if we should address this after the lawsuit was over. Results?? 103 NO's, do not change and 11, yes's to change. We saved gobs of money by not going thru a rewrite of the covenant and changing the documents. So there is a way to respond to the membership without ignoring requests to make changes despite the few who make a lot of noise to do something different.

Kirk,

Ignorance of the covenants is no excuse. You or your neigbors opinions don't matter. The reason the bylaws, covenants, etc are written down and recorded in the public records is so that buyers who do read them will know what they are purchasing. Perhaps they bought because they read that no campers, commercial vehicles, or whatever are not allowed. Then they move in and see these type of violations. They look to the board to make certain the covenants are upheld. As had been said on many of these posts if the MAJORITY (not just you and your neighbors) want to change the covenants this can easily be done. My suggestion is to explore this option, hold a meeting, get a vote required by your docs and go forward or give it up.